If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

While you are technically correct, the reality is that it makes no difference. It comes with most of the desktops or laptops people purchase, and is therefore perceived as free. If I build my own hardware, then yes I need to buy my own copy of Windows and know the costs. But how many people do that? Very few.

Further, that pre-installed Windows is also configured to work with all the wizz-bang features of the hardware. When someone wipes Windows off the system and replaces it with Linux, they find that not everything "just works". Then Linux sucks to them, and they go back to Windows. Linux is no longer free, because they wasted a bunch of time and effort on it.

I understand what you say, and I guess that in machines with Linux pre-installed, this could be reversed, in a certain degree at least.
That doesn't necessarily mean that one OS has a disadvantage or advantage over the other, but to the user it might seem like it. For example I might have to tell the Linux kernel that "aspm=force" through the bootloader, but on Windows someone else did it for you(the corresponding tweak) and called it, let's say, "Asus Smart Battery" and tell you it's a software developed by the company that helps make better usage of your hardware. xD
(I made up the last one randomly to clarify.)
But how would the user tell? Or care I guess .. :/
I believe that it will get much better soon though with some things things I'm reading and most things will be able to pretty much just work, even if no-one does it for you(or an OEM at least etc). Hopefully things will indeed go well in this part. Besides, more machines with Ubuntu pre-installed will be available in the next years it seems.

And some wonder why people think the Linux community is full of self-righteous assholes who think they are better than everyone else...

Its because the so-called Linux community IS full of self-righteous assholes who think they are better than everyone else.

Thanks for making that clear again to everyone.

Of course, you can't show me where people can purchase non-Windows bearing hardware which is less expensive than buying a mass-market computer with Windows pre-installed... no, you can only say people are stupid.

In EU i have the right to buy any laptop or desktop and return the windows license saving 50eu. And at least these assholes, they take pride from something important.

I understand what you say, and I guess that in machines with Linux pre-installed, this could be reversed, in a certain degree at least.
That doesn't necessarily mean that one OS has a disadvantage or advantage over the other, but to the user it might seem like it. For example I might have to tell the Linux kernel that "aspm=force" through the bootloader, but on Windows someone else did it for you(the corresponding tweak) and called it, let's say, "Asus Smart Battery" and tell you it's a software developed by the company that helps make better usage of your hardware. xD
(I made up the last one randomly to clarify.)
But how would the user tell? Or care I guess .. :/
I believe that it will get much better soon though with some things things I'm reading and most things will be able to pretty much just work, even if no-one does it for you(or an OEM at least etc). Hopefully things will indeed go well in this part. Besides, more machines with Ubuntu pre-installed will be available in the next years it seems.

Exactly. Companies like System76 do a lot of work to make the process of using Linux on a laptop or desktop "just work". They smooth over many of the rough edges of the OS, in the same way that Asus smooths over Windows installs for users.

Users don't care. They just want things to work. Honestly that is part of this move to tablets and smartphones. They tend to be much easier to use and straightforward to maintain than a computer, regardless of the OS.

Some parts of Linux are much more user friendly than before. The oft maligned X.org server, for example, no longer requires the archaic xorg.conf file. In general, it can configure everything dynamically. In other places, tho, like the transition from Gnome 2 to Gnome 3, where numerous functionality regressions were caused in the move and are not yet fixed, users can be very very frustrated. Windows has tended to have fewer of these regressions (tho they screw up too... WinXP to Vista...) and they have many more companies smoothing the rough edges.

In EU i have the right to buy any laptop or desktop and return the windows license saving 50eu. And at least these assholes, they take pride from something important.

No they don't . They like being assholes because they have nothing else other than looking down on others, period. They rarely contribute or do anything useful.

I have met and worked with people who actually contribute to open source and make it better. They don't act like that. They actually try to understand the issues, fix the problems with the software, and work to make it easier to use and deploy. They don't stick their head in the sand, hide behind silly ideology that open source is always the bestest, and rail against people who use other solutions. No, they ask, "why are people using those solutions, and how can we improve what we are doing to make what we are doing better?"

Taking back a Windows license to get your 50 euros back isn't something important. It just reinforces that people want something for free. Asking why most people would prefer NOT to do that, why they would prefer to use Windows or OSX, and working to make Linux something that everyone would actually WANT to use, THAT is important. Hell, even taking that 50 euros of savings and contributing the money to open source projects who you derive benefit from would be better than being some snotty asshole on the internet.

No they don't . They like being assholes because they have nothing else other than looking down on others, period. They rarely contribute or do anything useful.

I have met and worked with people who actually contribute to open source and make it better. They don't act like that. They actually try to understand the issues, fix the problems with the software, and work to make it easier to use and deploy. They don't stick their head in the sand, hide behind silly ideology that open source is always the bestest, and rail against people who use other solutions. No, they ask, "why are people using those solutions, and how can we improve what we are doing to make what we are doing better?"

Taking back a Windows license to get your 50 euros back isn't something important. It just reinforces that people want something for free. Asking why most people would prefer NOT to do that, why they would prefer to use Windows or OSX, and working to make Linux something that everyone would actually WANT to use, THAT is important. Hell, even taking that 50 euros of savings and contributing the money to open source projects who you derive benefit from would be better than being some snotty asshole on the internet.

I understand completely. But you can't get right or good from wrong "tested". So Linux is the only solution.

Seriously though, I think the "free" of linux, without me mentioning beer (ah shit that was impossible), is really good. Anyone can change it, and enthusiasm drives it. It is free of commercial contructs and feeble marketing. And also functions as an encyclopedia of excellent code. That is very in line with the principles of education.

Whatever is close source, dies with it`s companies. And many examples are of that. And there is a lot of to freedom, and setting an algorithm free, and I do understand Stallman on this, however I also like recent developments and establishment of the concept of "open source".

It really comes down to what kind of society you want. Obviously open-source is more in line, with an evolved society. Are we here to enslave ourselves by our own society to suboptimal commerical constructs, and commercial culture?

Religiously one may ponder Adam in the garden, who had no money, and dinner was ripping an apple of a tree. While most agree that commercial constructs and exchange of goods may be good, one should consider the exaggaration of it also.

You have stated that "Linux success is due to the fact that you can get it for free." and "Most Linux users (many corporations included) couldn't give a damn that it has great OOTB support for hardware. They like not paying for software, and further like not wasting their time contributing anything back to the so-called community which continues to give them stuff for free without them spending one bit of time or money."

This is plain wrong. Any somewhat serious company that has linux kernel as a business component will invest into it, employ kernel devs. This paid devs are major contributors to the kernel. There are serious amounts of money pumped into linux, which clearly contradicts your statements about "get it for free" and "wasting time contributing back".

I don't buy any of your arguments. With that logic, the kernel should not provide any GPL exceptions at all, so that you wouldn't be able to run GPL incompatible software on it. That way, userspace software vendors would open source their products. Yeah, I can see *that* one working.

No. The kernel is a required, low level component of the OS. Just like the GPL itself provides a built-in exception for using low-level proprietary OS components with GPL software without resulting in a GPL violation, so should the kernel do the reverse. The NVidia driver is a driver, and thus cannot work reliably outside kernel space. Forbidding them from using kernel interfaces is immoral. Why is it OK that I can run a GPL app on Windows, which links against Microsoft's C library, but I can't have a proprietary driver making use of an interface of a GPL kernel?

2) You can run any software using Microsoft's libc. You can run any software using glibc. Both are equally legal.

3) There is nothing the kernel devs can do. They can NOT let Nvidia put their stuff in the kernel. The license prohibits it. They do not have the ability (or desire, but that's secondary) to change the license. Even if everyone on lkml agreed they wanted to, THEY CANNOT.

So while many Linux desktop users are quick to bash NVIDIA over their lack of proper Optimus support, right now they are also being forced down by the Linux kernel developers not wanting to allow non-GPL drivers to use this unified buffer sharing infrastructure and reducing driver interoperability.

It doesn't matter what Alan Cox wants, courts have already stated that APIs are not covered by copyright or have you already forgotten the Oracle v. Google case where Java's API (gpl 2 same as the kernel, mind you) lost to Android?